Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: the delete is irreversible (no undo) and cascades to the object's properties. It also names the safe alternative path for soft-deactivation, which is exactly the context an agent needs before committing an unrecoverable action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action and its irreversibility, followed by the alternatives the ordering is exactly right for a destructive tool. The trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search' synonym block is retrieval noise for an agent that has already selected the tool, keeping it just below 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what is destroyed, that it cannot be undone, and which sibling to pick instead.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Objekt-udid'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing beyond that, such as where a udid is obtained, though none is really required here. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ein Objekt unwiderruflich loeschen') and adds scope that distinguishes it: the object's properties are removed along with it. It is clearly separable from onto_object_set_property and onto_object_bulk_action, and the German/English wording leaves no ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states the condition ('nur, wenn der Datensatz wirklich entfallen soll'), the exclusion ('es gibt kein Undo'), and two named alternatives with their selecting conditions: set a status property via onto_object_set_property to deactivate/archive, or use onto_object_bulk_action for multiple objects. Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.